Our new premier is showing promise for education. Just after winning the PC leadership, Alison Redford restated her promise to return over a hundred million dollars cut from the provincial education budget. School divisions across the province are hoping to get the funds to re-hire staff. St. Paul Education Regional Division lost about nine teaching positions and 15 support staff positions. The East Central Francophone Education School Division, which includes École du Sommet, was also impacted by the cuts.
The school divisions have not heard how much funding will be restored or when but are “encouraged” by the news, said Glen Brodziak, superintendent of schools for SPERD.
According to media reports, Redford indicated she would re-open the debate on Bill 44, which includes a clause requiring schools to give parents written notice about when topics such as religion or sexual orientation are discussed in classrooms. Any teacher who discusses these topics without prior written permission could be called before the Human Rights Tribunal. There was confusion about what might happen if one of the topics came up casually in classroom conversation. The Alberta Teachers Association would like to see the education related section of the Human Rights Act removed and so welcome the news of re-opening the debate.
I hope that Redford will also look into the new proposed Education Act. The provincial government is in the process of replacing the old School Act with an updated Education Act, which will be introduced in the spring session of the Alberta Legislature.
There are a couple of noteworthy changes that might cause some controversy. One of those is increasing the age at which kids can leave school from age 16 to age 17. Although I value and respect education, I don’t support this change.
The arguments in favour of the change would be to reduce the drop out rate and encourage more youth to get a high school diploma. It may seem like a good idea on the surface but just doesn’t work in reality.
Forcing a person to sit in a classroom when they don’t want to be there will not improve the number of students achieving a high school diploma. A teacher can’t shove knowledge down a student’s throat, learning requires active participation by the learner. If someone does not want to learn, you can’t make them and there is very little point in forcing them to sit in a classroom to satisfy a government requirement.
Some individuals know what they want at an early age. They have a direction and drive and don’t want to be held back. Peter Pocklington, for example, left high school at age 16 and began selling cars. He went on to become one of the richest men in Canada. Richard Branson dropped out of high school to produce records and is now one of the richest men in the world. Would it really benefit these entrepreneurs or society if they sat in a classroom for an extra year?
Not everyone who drops out of high school becomes rich, of course, but most do get jobs, or open businesses and become productive members of their community. A high school diploma is not necessary to have a good life.
Forcing young people to stay in school is not beneficial for the learning environment of the classroom. Having two or three teens in a classroom that don’t want to be there and don’t see any value in what is being taught can have a huge negative impact on the learning of others.
If the government is serious about getting students to stay in school, then entice them with benefits such as free or greatly subsidized post secondary education. Give young people a reason to “want” to stay in school. I hope Redford will take another look at the Education Act because some of these small changes may have a big detrimental effect on education.
